Obviously blueskies, the keyword here is CAR. I mean, that's what the prosecutors will try to use in their advantage - why the guy was inside his car, why did not his friend put him in his bed if he (the guy arrested) was so drunk he just could not help sleeping, etc. I would tend to believe, though, that if the officer (police officer) did not actually caught him driving AND if he will not lie in court, zagat does have a chance to have the charges thrown away.

Did you read the case in Crim where the guy fell asleep in his truck in his own driveway, with a bunch of empty beer cans on the passenger side?

Claimed he was mad at his wife or something and went out there to drink, then passed out.

He got off because they couldn't prove whether he was coming or going. No way to infer the driveway was the end of his trip rather than the beginning.

People get off all the time. What's the citation for that case? Whether the drunk was at the end or the beginning of his "trip," it would seem that the drunk still made or was about to make a "trip."

i suspect that it is Walek v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 361 N.W.2d 482 (Minn.App., 1985).

Actually the case is Owens v. State, 93 Md.App. 162 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992). You should pay more attention in class because the defendant was found guilty by the trial court. This ruling was then affirmed by the appellate court.

Did you read the case in Crim where the guy fell asleep in his truck in his own driveway, with a bunch of empty beer cans on the passenger side?

Claimed he was mad at his wife or something and went out there to drink, then passed out.

He got off because they couldn't prove whether he was coming or going. No way to infer the driveway was the end of his trip rather than the beginning.

People get off all the time. What's the citation for that case? Whether the drunk was at the end or the beginning of his "trip," it would seem that the drunk still made or was about to make a "trip."

i suspect that it is Walek v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 361 N.W.2d 482 (Minn.App., 1985).

Actually the case is Owens v. State, 93 Md.App. 162 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992). You should pay more attention in class because the defendant was found guilty by the trial court. This ruling was then affirmed by the appellate court.

Actually the case is Owens v. State, 93 Md.App. 162 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992). You should pay more attention in class because the defendant was found guilty by the trial court. This ruling was then affirmed by the appellate court.

Oh lord.

It's kind of true. His statement should have been, "You should actually go to class sometime..."